Google's betrayal? [Verizon and Google’s Net Neutrality Agreement Explained]

[zuperxtreme]

So I don't know if any of you heard the news, but Google recently partnered up with Verizon in writting a net neutrality proposal. As it looks now, their "Do no Evil" is out the window.

Here's an article explaining the proposal:

What is net neutrality, anyway?

... Google’s own description from 2006.

Forget the tubes and imagine a highway. When five o’clock hits, everybody sits in traffic as the roads fill up with cars – which represent data, here. With net neutrality in place, every piece of data waits in line the same way the cars do on the highway. It’s fair. The lack of net neutrality is like throwing down cones to make the left lane a high-speed toll lane. Can’t pay? Sit in line with the schmucks.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but it gets across the basic principle: Rather than splitting a public asset (roads or in this case, wireless airwaves) equitably, the guys with the most cash get the rule of the roost.

What did Verizon and Google agree on?

On the surface, the companies agreed that net neutrality was a good thing and that the FCC should be able to enforce fines for companies that don’t abide by it, and that carriers should be forced to share information on how they route traffic for transparency. You can read the exact language here.

They also created a lot of loopholes and exceptions, which is why a lot of folks are all bent out of shape by it.

What loopholes and exceptions?

The document has two major exceptions to net neutrality as it is written.

The first, and most broad, basically exempts wireless carriers from all the rules except transparency. In other words, they can play favorites and route traffic however they want, as long as they tell us how they’re doing it. Only wired carriers would be subject to net neutrality principles, and even they would have some creative leeway.( Makes sense, Verizon and Google both have more interest in Wireless data)

The second allows for “differentiated managed services” that would be exempt from the neutrality given to other traffic. The document gives the examples of “health care monitoring, gaming, smart grid, and advanced educational services.” Although it explicitly claims these could not be use to circumvent rules, it provides no guidelines for which types of services warrant exemption and which belong in the same stream as everyone else.

What do net neutrality advocates make of it?

They’re enraged, mostly.

Public Knowledge, a public interest group concerned with digital issues, has made “Google sold you out” its war cry. “This agreement would, among other things, allow Verizon to prioritize applications and content at whim over its mobile broadband network,” the group claims.

The SaveTheInternet.com coalition says “Google is about to cut a deal with Verizon that would end the Internet as we know it.” Putting it more bluntly, “this deal puts the company in bed with the devil.”

Why are Verizon and Google making laws for themselves?

The guidelines set up between Google and Verizon aren’t actually laws anyone else has to adhere too – they’re simply a “proposed Internet framework.” The companies hope the FCC will adopt the language and cement it as the law of the land, but for the moment, they’re just words on a page. (Lets hope the FCC stays sane)

Recently, the FCC has been courting telecom companies – including Google and Verizon – for input on net neutrality rules, but it nixed these meetings last week under intense public scrutiny over the lack of public input. Many critics also question why the FCC is asking the companies it should be regulating for input on how they should be regulated – like a parent asking a four-year-old what would be a reasonable bed time.

What will happen if we lose net neutrality?

In practice, this would mean that a service provider like Verizon could charge a company like Google for access to that special high-speed toll lane for data.

As an end user, that might mean that Mapquest and Bing Maps now load much slower than Google Maps. Hotmail and Yahoo mail load slower than Gmail. Yahoo and Bing searches take longer than Google searches. The plethora of choices you take for granted on the Web begin to evaporate when the biggest player in any space is able to pay for priority handling, shutting out competitors.

Internet service providers could also decide to throttle down services they see as threats to their own business. For example, Comcast could choke bandwidth for sites like Hulu in order to force consumers into its own cable TV packages.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/computi...t-mean-to-you/


Here's the actual proposal: http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/V...ework-Proposal

I suppose it was inevitable that a major corporation, and a powerful one as Google, would do things a bit "evil". After all it's a corporation and their main interest is profit, this would give them a big advantage.
Now I wonder how this will affect Google since one of the biggest things going for them was the actual "Do no evil" thing.

[The Better Version]

Nothings going to happen because people will still get most of the things they need such as e-mail, youtube, google, etc. The only problem is that big companies will be able to monopsonize websites, which means that really good ones, such as this could be screwed. Unless they completely inconvenience users, no ones going to do a thing because they're much too busy trying to earn buck so that they can make it through the day. Out of principle, if this deal goes through, I'm going to stop using google....at least as much as I can.

[lethargic]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20...=2547-1_3-0-20

Google's response to the shitstorm.

Bear in mind, the document in question is really just a proposal on how to regulate net neutrality.

Still, I can't believe Google's stance of "prioritizing certain internet traffic is bad except if you tell everybody you're doing it".

[mrparks]

As much as I dislike the idea of big business controlling anything that doesn't specifically belong to them, doesn't Net Neutrality only matter because of the current state of the internet infrastructure?

If the entire system goes fiber optic (I figure it eventually will have to, to keep up with demand) the road would be so big that all the cars could go down it at will.

Or did I miss something?

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by mrparks

As much as I dislike the idea of big business controlling anything that doesn't specifically belong to them, doesn't Net Neutrality only matter because of the current state of the internet infrastructure?

If the entire system goes fiber optic (I figure it eventually will have to, to keep up with demand) the road would be so big that all the cars could go down it at will.

Or did I miss something?

Traffic will increase as bandwidth goes up.

[lethargic]

Originally Posted by mrparks

As much as I dislike the idea of big business controlling anything that doesn't specifically belong to them, doesn't Net Neutrality only matter because of the current state of the internet infrastructure?

If the entire system goes fiber optic (I figure it eventually will have to, to keep up with demand) the road would be so big that all the cars could go down it at will.

Or did I miss something?

I think fiber optic for everybody is still many years away.

There's been a country-wide initiative to increase internet speeds across the U.S. because, somewhere along the line, someone in the government realized the the speeds we get are laughably slow compared to some other countries. When broadband speeds were compared worldwide, I don't even think the U.S. made the top 10...

They want to give broadband to even the rural areas of this country and lay fiber optic cable all over the place, but I don't think anyone rly has a plan on how to do this.

Like Shrike said, increase in bandwidth will only mean an increase in traffic. I suppose if you open the "tubes" of the internet wide enough, it'll take a while for the traffic to start clogging them up again. But it will eventually.

[zuperxtreme]

Also, remember that Google has a TON of dark fiber which they will most likely use when they start being an ISP. So if they can regulate the content and they're the ISP, expect content to be throttled. Except theirs of course...

[lethargic]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

Also, remember that Google has a TON of dark fiber which they will most likely use when they start being an ISP. So if they can regulate the content and they're the ISP, expect content to be throttled. Except theirs of course...

If things keep going the way they are, someday Google will own all of the contents of the internet.

[zuperxtreme]

Originally Posted by lethargic

If things keep going the way they are, someday Google will own all of the contents of the internet.

If you want to look at it that way:

1) Acquire Dark Fiber(unused fiber optic)

2) Screw Net Neutrality in your favor

3) Make an OS completely web dependent

4) ?????????

5) PROFIT!

[lethargic]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

If you want to look at it that way:

1) Acquire Dark Fiber(unused fiber optic)

2) Screw Net Neutrality in your favor

3) Make an OS completely web dependent

4) ?????????

5) PROFIT!

Careful there...Google might start thinking that you know too much and dispatch assassins.

[Figure-8]

Gotta take responsibility for what is happening if we want change!

[BlackHat]

Originally Posted by lethargic

Careful there...Google might start thinking that you know too much and dispatch assassins.

What are you talking about they're just going to send terminators back from the future.

[Rocko]

I knew Google would eventually drop all morality in the name of profits. Much easier to fuck people over, get rich, and feed money into PR to cover it all.

[zuperxtreme]

Also, AT&T is backing this...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...asonable-.html

[ComradeAsh]

Originally Posted by Rocko

I knew Google would eventually drop all morality in the name of profits. Much easier to fuck people over, get rich, and feed money into PR to cover it all.

They're a publicly listed company.

Their primary responsibility is to their shareholders.

[Rocko]

Originally Posted by ComradeAsh

They're a publicly listed company.

Their primary responsibility is to their shareholders.

And that makes it okay...why?

[The Methematician]

Originally Posted by lethargic

Careful there...Google might start thinking that you know too much and dispatch assassins.

These days all assssassins are busy writing their screenplays. It easier for Google to implant cps on hdd and then inform the FBI bout it ....

As a former engineer working for a 'major" hdd manufacturer, I can testify that Google had been working closely to integrate it's ware and serviced into each and every hdd's firmware. All in the name of anti-piracy.

I can leak the internal memos and tech details but I dont want google to implant cp on my hdd.

[SHH]

No surprise google would do such an evil thing with Al Gore as their advisor.

[zuperxtreme]

Originally Posted by The Methematician

These days all assssassins are busy writing their screenplays. It easier for Google to implant cps on hdd and then inform the FBI bout it ....

As a former engineer working for a 'major" hdd manufacturer, I can testify that Google had been working closely to integrate it's ware and serviced into each and every hdd's firmware. All in the name of anti-piracy.

I can leak the internal memos and tech details but I dont want google to implant cp on my hdd.

http://wikileaks.org/ if you're serious.

[The Methematician]

Originally Posted by zuperxtreme

http://wikileaks.org/ if you're serious.

I wouldnt dare. The fact that there's this :

http://www.google.com/trends?q=wikileaks

meant that the site is crawling .... literally and analogically .... with google bots. These bots reports *EVERYTHING*, and its undisclosed function includes .... but are not limited to recording of ip addr, router/wifi card serial numbers, imei numbers (if your using cellular broadband), parts and partials, in unspecified size of your uploaded/downloaded data (which is a by-product of their 2nd generation of throttling "service" research)

and a hell lot of other military-friendly functions. We (engineers) are allowed to talk about them as long as we don't go around trying or intend to try to prove their existence.

[zuperxtreme]

... I'm starting not to like Google.

[The Methematician]

logged.

[zuperxtreme]

*Runs*

[The Methematician]

Being a hermit is the only thing that'll keep you safe. But before that ... make sure you fedex me every piece of electronics that you't, like cells, pda, nigger berries, comp and laptops, ipods ... so that google corp will hunt me instead of you.

I'll take the heat for you. There's nothing I wont do for a comrade.

p/s I'll snail mail you your address so that gmail won't be able to track them. But first please snail mail me your address, and remember ..... failure to do these asap will only result in certain DEATH !!!!! Your death.